• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.99-105
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of IMRT in our clinic from based on TG119 procedure and establish action level. Five IMRT test cases were described in TG119: multi-target, head&neck, prostate, and two C-shapes (easy&hard). There were used and delivered to water-equivalent solid phantom for IMRT. Absolute dose for points in target and OAR was measured by using an ion chamber (CC13, IBA). EBT2 film was utilized to compare the measured two-dimensional dose distribution with the calculated one by treatment planning system. All collected data were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine the confidence limit. The mean of relative error (%) between measured and calculated value was $1.2{\pm}1.1%$ and $1.2{\pm}0.7%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The resulting confidence limits were 3.4% and 2.6%. In EBT2 film dosimetry, the average percentage of points passing the gamma criteria (3%/3 mm) was $97.7{\pm}0.8%$. Confidence limit values determined by EBT2 film analysis was 3.9%. This study has focused on IMRT commissioning and quality assurance based on TG119 guideline. It is concluded that action level were ${\pm}4%$ and ${\pm}3%$ for target and OAR and 97% for film measurement, respectively. It is expected that TG119-based procedure can be used as reference to evaluate the accuracy of IMRT for each institution.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.28-35
• /
• 2015

In this study, we investigated the effects of an iterative reconstruction algorithm and an automatic exposure control (AEC) technique on image quality and radiation dose through phantom experiments with coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography protocols. We scanned the AAPM CT performance phantom using 320 multi-detector-row CT. At the tube voltages of 80, 100, and 120 kVp, the scanning was repeated with two settings of the AEC technique, i.e., with the target standard deviations (SD) values of 33 (the higher tube current) and 44 (the lower tube current). The scanned projection data were reconstructed also in two ways, with the filtered back projection (FBP) and with the iterative reconstruction technique (AIDR-3D). The image quality was evaluated quantitatively with the noise standard deviation, modulation transfer function, and the contrast to noise ratio (CNR). More specifically, we analyzed the influences of selection of a tube voltage and a reconstruction algorithm on tube current modulation and consequently on radiation dose. Reduction of image noise by the iterative reconstruction algorithm compared with the FBP was revealed eminently, especially with the lower tube current protocols, i.e., it was decreased by 46% and 38%, when the AEC was established with the lower dose (the target SD=44) and the higher dose (the target SD=33), respectively. As a side effect of iterative reconstruction, the spatial resolution was decreased by a degree that could not mar the remarkable gains in terms of noise reduction. Consequently, if coronary CT angiogprahy is scanned and reconstructed using both the automatic exposure control and iterative reconstruction techniques, it is anticipated that, in comparison with a conventional acquisition method, image noise can be reduced significantly with slight decrease in spatial resolution, implying clinical advantages of radiation dose reduction, still being faithful to the ALARA principle.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.267-276
• /
• 1998

Any detector inserted into a phantom should have such a geometry that it caused as small as possible perturbation of the electron fluence. Plane parallel chambers meet this requirement better than other chambers of configurations. IAEA protocol recommends the use of plane parallel chambers for this reason. However, the cylindrical chambers are widely used for convenient. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the absorbed dose due to the differences of four different dosimetry protocols such as IAEA protocol using cylindrical chamber, TG 21 protocol using cylindrical chamber, Markus protocol using plane parallel chamber, and TG 39 report for the calibration of plane parallel chamber in electron beams. Depth-ionization measurements for the electron beams of nominal energy 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 MeV from Siemens accelerator with a 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size were made using a radiation field analyser with 0.125 cc ion chamber. Dosimetric measurements by IAEA and TG 21 protocol were made with a farmer type ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. Dosimetric measurements by Markus protocol were made with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. The cavity-gas calibration factor for the plane parallel chamber was obtained with the use of 18 MeV electron beam as guided by TG 39 report. Dosimetric measurements by TG 39 were performed with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. For all the energies and protocols, measurements were made along the central axis of the distance of 100 cm (SSD = 100 cm) with 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size at the depth of d$_{max}$ for each electron beam, respectively. In the case of 18 MeV, the discrepancy of 0.9 % between IAEA and TG 21 was found and the two protocols were agreed within 0.7 % for other energies. In the case of 18 MeV and 6 MeV, the discrepancies of $\pm$ 0.8 % between Markus and TG 39 was found, respectively and the two protocols were agreed within 0.5 % for other energies. Since the discrepancy of 1.6 % between cylindrical and plane parallel chamber was found for 18 MeV, it is suggested to get the calibration factor using other method as guided. by TG 39.9.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.613-620
• /
• 2017

Planning dose must be delivered accurately for radiation therapy. Also, It must be needed accurately setup. However, patient positioning images were need for accuracy setup. Then patient positioning images is followed by additional exposure to radiation. For 45 points in the phantom, we measured the doses for 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams, OBI(On Board Imager) and CBCT(Conebeam Computed Tomography) using OSLD(Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimeter). We compared the differences in the cases where posture confirmation imaging at each point was added to the treatment dose. Also, we tried to propose a photography cycle that satisfies the 5% recommended by AAPM(The American Association of Physicists in Medicine). As a result, a maximum of 98.6 cGy was obtained at a minimum of 45.27 cGy at the 6 MV, a maximum of 99.66 cGy at a minimum of 53.34 cGy at the 10 MV, a maximum of 2.64 cGy at the minimum of 0.19 cGy for the OBI and a maximum of 17.18 cGy at the minimum of 0.54 cGy for the CBCT.The ratio of the radiation dose to the treatment dose is 3.49% in the case of 2D imaging and the maximum is 22.65% in the case of 3D imaging. Therefore, tolerance of 2D image is 1 exposure per day, and 3D image is 1 exposure per week. And it is need to calculation of separate in the parallelism at additional study.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.577-585
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of beam delivery QA software using the MLC dynalog file, about the VMAT plan with AAPM TG-119 protocol. The Clinac iX with a built-in 120 MLC was used to acquire the MLC dynalog file be imported in MobiusFx(MFX). To establish VMAT plan, Oncentra RTP system was used target and organ structures were contoured in Im'RT phantom. For evaluation of dose distribution was evaluated by using gamma index, and the point dose was evaluated by using the CC13 ion chamber in Im'RT phantom. For the evaluation of point dose, the mean of relative error between measured and calculated value was $1.41{\pm}0.92%$(Target) and $0.89{\pm}0.86%$(OAR), the confidence limit were 3.21(96.79%, Target) and 2.58(97.42%, OAR). For the evaluation of dose distribution, in case of $Delta^{4PT}$, the average percentage of passing rate were $99.78{\pm}0.2%$(3%/3 mm), $96.86{\pm}1.76%$(2%/2 mm). In case of MFX, the average percentage of passing rate were $99.90{\pm}0.14%$(3%/3 mm), $97.98{\pm}1.97%$(2%/2 mm), the confidence limits(CL) were in case of $Delta^{4PT}$ 0.62(99.38%, 3%/3 mm), 6.6(93.4%, 2%/2 mm), in case of MFX, 0.38(99.62%, 3%/3 mm), 5.88(94.12%, 2%/2 mm). In this study, we performed VMAT QA method using dynamic MLC log file compare to binary diode array chamber. All analyzed results were satisfied with acceptance criteria based on TG-119 protocol.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.168-177
• /
• 2015

For evaluating the treatment planning accurately, the quality assurance for treatment planning is recommended when patients were treated with IMRT which is complex and delicate. To realize this purpose, treatment plan quality assurance software can be used to verify the delivered dose accurately before and after of treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of treatment plan quality assurance software for each IMRT plan according to MLC DLG (dosimetric leaf gap). Novalis Tx with a built-in HD120 MLC was used in this study to acquire the MLC dynalog file be imported in MobiusFx. To establish IMRT plan, Eclipse RTP system was used and target and organ structures (multi-target, mock prostate, mock head/neck, C-shape case) were contoured in I'mRT phantom. To verify the difference of dose distribution according to DLG, MLC dynalog files were imported to MobiusFx software and changed the DLG (0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.3, 1.6 mm) values in MobiusFx. For evaluation dose, dose distribution was evaluated by using 3D gamma index for the gamma criteria 3% and distance to agreement 3 mm, and the point dose was acquired by using the CC13 ionization chamber in isocenter of I'mRT phantom. In the result for point dose, the mock head/neck and multi-target had difference about 4% and 3% in DLG 0.5 and 0.7 mm respectively, and the other DLGs had difference less than 3%. The gamma index passing-rate of mock head/neck were below 81% for PTV and cord, and multi-target were below 30% for center and superior target in DLGs 0.5, 0.7 mm, however, inferior target of multi-target case and parotid of mock head/neck case had 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. The point dose of mock prostate showed difference below 3.0% in all DLGs, however, the passing rate of PTV were below 95% in 0.5, 0.7 mm DLGs, and the other DLGs were above 98%. The rectum and bladder had 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. As the difference of point dose in C-shape were 3~9% except for 1.3 mm DLG, the passing rate of PTV in 1.0 1.3 mm were 96.7, 93.0% respectively. However, passing rate of the other DLGs were below 86% and core was 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. In this study, we verified that the accuracy of treatment planning QA system can be affected by DLG values. For precise quality assurance for treatment technique using the MLC motion like IMRT and VMAT, we should use appropriate DLG value in linear accelerator and RTP system.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.193-200
• /
• 2015

The aim of this study is to present commissioning results of the ViewRay system. We verified safety functions of the ViewRay system. For imaging system, we acquired signal to noise ratio (SNR) and image uniformity. In addition, we checked spatial integrity of the image. Couch movement accuracy and coincidence of isocenters (radiation therapy system, imaging system and virtual isocneter) was verified. Accuracy of MLC positioing was checked. We performed reference dosimetry according to American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 51 (TG-51) in water phantom for head 1 and 3. The deviations between measurements and calculation of percent depth dose (PDD) and output factor were evaluated. Finally, we performed gamma evaluations with a total of 8 IMRT plans as an end-to-end (E2E) test of the system. Every safety system of ViewRay operated properly. The values of SNR and Uniformity met the tolerance level. Every point within 10 cm and 17.5 cm radii about the isocenter showed deviations less than 1 mm and 2 mm, respectively. The average couch movement errors in transverse (x), longitudinal (y) and vertical (z) directions were 0.2 mm, 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively. The deviations between radiation isocenter and virtual isocenter in x, y and z directions were 0 mm, 0 mm and 0.3 mm, respectively. Those between virtual isocenter and imaging isocenter were 0.6 mm, 0.5 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively. The average MLC positioning errors were less than 0.6 mm. The deviations of output, PDDs between mesured vs. BJR supplement 25, PDDs between measured and calculated and output factors of each head were less than 0.5%, 1%, 1% and 2%, respectively. For E2E test, average gamma passing rate with 3%/3 mm criterion was $99.9%{\pm}0.1%$.